Has science explained anything relevant to existence? (2)

My problem with Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Ever since I read about this theory (when I was 24), I have been a sceptic. I had read a little anatomy and physiology by then. I couldn’t see how the eye could have evolved through random mutation (mutations are usually errors in copying DNA); and how natural selection, which eliminates the failures in adaptation, could have had a role. As the whole process requires a very long time, an inconceivable list of intermediate forms would need to appear along the way.

Cosmic catastrophes may better explain the appearance of whole functioning forms; while yet needing an organising influence. Thus, extra-solar impacts may damage some Earth-bound species; some of the survivors may then evolve into complete, viable forms. These forms may not have been possible through the Darwinian process. Did the modern bird arise from the destruction of dinosaurs?

The concept of punctuated equilibrium, allegedly intended to counter cosmic catastrophes as a cause does not seem to be an explanation – only a description of what occurs. I have read an attempted explanation of this concept, but it was full of suppositions. As well, have intermediate forms (missing links) been found?

What then of flowering plants (100 million years old), with no intermediate species from non-flowering plants (300 million years old)? Most flowers need bees and other pollinators. How did this relationship evolve? By accident? By chance?

Whereas Darwinian evolution is based on competition, co-operation and symbiosis are clearly relevant in life. That competition was seen as the driver was consistent with Karl Marx’s dialectical materialism. Darwin and Marx were original thinkers of the 19th century. Marx’s viewpoint was that matter is the sole subject of change, which is the product of conflict arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all things. That view had a degree of plausibility then.

The biggest challenge was from Michael Behe, a biologist, who listed blood clotting, cilia, the human immune system, the transport of materials within cells, and the synthesis of nucleotides as irreducibly complex, and that no gradual route could have led to their creation.

Simple forms of life could have may have been deposited on Earth through crashing meteorites or comets. Apparently, there is sufficient evidence of this happening. Or, through some catastrophic impacts from space. Could the concept of panspermia also include life being brought to Earth by an advanced civilisation? Indeed, did extraterrestrials also tweak some life forms on Earth onto more complex levels? The Christian Bible refers to the Adam in much the same way that Zachariah Sitchin suggests, from Sumerian records, that the Anunnaki from the planet Nibiru created man (to be a slave).

Theorising that purpose is built into all forms of life on Earth may be of some value. If this is true, how did it happen? My observation of the trees and tall shrubs in my garden competing with one another is suggestive of purpose. Then, there is the issue of how certain lizards and insects were able to acquire the mechanism to change their skin colours at will, or to acquire, on a permanent basis, the colouration of the tree or leaf on which this life-form sites itself.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution may be the only theory available to explain inter-species change. But it has not been proven. Is it time to admit that we should start again?

(The ‘Big Bang’ Theory of Cosmology also does not make sense. Read Part 2)

 

 

Has science explained anything relevant to existence? (1)

A necessary prelude to unveiling this challenge is the reality that humans have only 5 senses of information, with their processor, the brain, obviously of a limited potential. As said by many people of competence, there could be many matters of relevance to human existence (such as mathematics waiting in cloudland to be discovered, or the evidently existing ephemeral realm, including the spiritual) which are beyond our comprehension.

Scientist David Bohm has introduced the concept of ‘implicate’ and ‘explicate’ orders, where the latter order represents the reality that we perceive as having been unfolded from an un-manifested state in the former order. But he has apparently not demonstrated the necessary causal or transactional link between them.

There is also an undeniable need to explain the reality of consciousness, and possibly other realities of existential significance, such as the manifestation on Earth of a spirit from the Afterlife. Such a spirit displayed to me (and a clairvoyant) his Earth memory, knowledge of events in my life after his death, and the ability to hear me while communicating psychically with the clairvoyant.

My reality is thus three-fold: physical, mental and spiritual. I accept that the study of the spiritual realm is beyond the capacity of the scientific method, which I studied during my training as a research psychologist. This method, quite correctly, requires repeatability. This is not available in the study of psychic phenomena, memories of past lives by young children of up to age 6, my own exposure to the spirit realm through clairvoyants of great reliability, and so on.

Yet, we have to rely upon the scientific method to investigate and tell us about our physical realm. Has it done that adequately? Is the mechanistic material paradigm underpinning this method adequate to this task?

While the structures, facets, and components of the physical realm are being investigated rigorously, subject to unavoidable human error, and some probable bias, there seems to be a reliance on speculative, unverifiable, theories to offer explanations. Such theories in science seem to evolve, or are modified, as more understanding of their limitations are discovered. Apparently, it is not possible to prove by experimentation some essential theories, or to express these on a sound mathematical basis. What then?

Could unverifiable speculative theories (tentative explanations), which are built upon one another, be relied upon to explain the more relevant realities of human existence? We need theories of creation and evolution which are more credible than the Big Bang Theory of Cosmology and Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. See Parts 2 and 3 of my post.

As well, how many theories of potential value have been rejected because they do not fit the prevailing paradigm? Of the hypotheses rationally available following a finding of a relationship or conclusion, what criteria might be applied to select one to be pursued? Since a theory has to explain, as well as to predict, would not the selection be crucial?

Moving on, why not adopt speculative, unprovable theorising in researching the non-material, the ephemeral – especially Consciousness? Or the aether, analogous to the ‘Ocean’ of Consciousness of mainstream Hinduism? Opening the minds of researchers to probabilities in matters of human existence may be of greater value than seeking proof through the scientific method or mathematics.

An understanding of reality may be available only through glimpses of what now appears ephemeral, such glimpses being of a probabilistic nature.

“On one’s knees” (from ‘Pithy Perspectives’)

“It was a night of terror. Not a terror of the unseen, with ghosts and hobgoblins silently sneaking into the subconscious of superstitious sleeping souls; for that is when the terror of the unknown takes hold of those whose minds are not fixed firmly on terra firma. It was indeed the terror of the visible, the audible, and the kinesthetically palpable.

While the terror of the intangible arouses a silent scream, the terror of the visible, the audible, and the kinesthetically palpable causes, despite a probable rigidity of all human muscles, very loud and frightening screams. While such screams frighten the listener in a certain unsettling way, they frighten the screamer in a different and horrifying way.

On that night of terror, the question on everyone’s lips began with a simple anxiety-laden “What’s happening?” As the ground split in an apparently random fashion, the next question, uttered in a terrible fear, was “Which way do we run?” This was followed by a desperate “Is there anywhere I can hide?” as one’s bed, bath and, indeed, house fell into the ravines now forming. People fell into the ravines, and the simultaneous slippage of soil and other debris followed the path of gravity, burying the fallen.

A sudden and peaceful death was the good fortune of those whose trajectory was gravity-driven. If their religious leaders had spoken with sound knowledge, then the souls of the buried would sit at the right hand of God, or on Her knees; or wait to be recycled, in time, for yet another sojourn on Earth; or frolic in Heaven surrounded by music and the sound of fountains; or wait to be chosen for a reward of something or other. It would not matter. They were out of harm’s way.

For those who were required to live with the terror of the sounds and consequences of Earthly destruction, there was no salvation. They would, with their broken bones and maladjusted minds, die slowly of cold, starvation, severe illnesses caused by polluted water (if there was any water available), criminal activity by fellow humans driven by greed of one kind or another, and lax recovery-efforts by those of their rulers who were capable of remaining in office.

When Earth had finished rupturing, and parts of the countryside had simply sunk into the neighboring sea or moved out into the ocean to form new islands, the survivors would discover that all the known volcanoes had blown their tops. While this outpouring would enrich the soil for the centuries to come, the volcanic ash thrown up into the atmosphere would block the sun over all of Earth for decades. So more people would starve to death, societies would disappear, and Gaia (the Soul of Earth) would rejoice!

While the human population of Earth needed a drastic pruning, I did not want you to die. But I could not see you. Did you survive the night of terror? Regrettably, I still cannot help you, as I am sitting on the right knee of Herself!”

 

Space and time – are they real?

What is space? Is it not just the emptiness all around us? Is there any materiality in its makeup or constituency? And, there are spaces within us, like the sinus in my head.

But, space is not empty, is it? There are viruses (bits of protein looking for a home), bacteria, and a huge variety of life forms, in all spaces, including cosmic particles and rays. Reportedly, hydrogen is also to be found. It is said to be  everywhere, even in bell-jars from which all the air has been withdrawn. Yet, space is no more than the non-material environment within which much occurs all the time – like a room full of active little children.

Occurrences and events, as they happen, implicate the passage of time. But, time is surely no more than a record of things which have happened, or which are happening, and which (somehow and most improbably) record events to happen. For instance, a clairvoyant saw me addressing a group of youths 12 years before I was invited to be a guest lecturer at a university. And a ‘healer’ was told by her Spirit Guide about a couple of my past lives (of which I was not aware and cannot access).

Then, when certain scientists write about space-time, we are generally presented with a diagrammatic representation of a three-dimensional mesh. This doesn’t make sense to me. Why is time (representing three-dimensional activity) built into space (being nothingness), as if it is an integrated structure?

Then, to explain gravity, we are shown a dip in this ‘fabric’ of space-time where an object is subject to ubiquitous gravity. So, space-time can be bent. Thus, under a forest or a busy street in a city, this alleged fabric would have lots of sagging ‘spaces,’ right?

Scientific nomenclature, allied to semantics, lead me to prefer an insubstantial reality, where the material is only a sort of projection from the ethereal. ‘Space’ and ‘time’ are neither, as I suspect.

“I need a pill, Doc”

A couple of senior citizens consulted a very experienced medico. The wife, a retired nurse, told the medico that her husband was depressed, and needed a pill. After examining the husband, the doctor said that the man did not seem clinically depressed, and refused him any medication. He advised instead that the couple spend the next 6 weeks at the nearby beach, and enjoy the health -enriching ambience there. The couple stormed out.

The therapeutic effect of spending time regularly at the seaside is patently obvious. One’s eyes, ears, lungs, and soul could benefit from that experience. Breathing the ozone, tasting the salt in the air, watching the never-ending movement of the water, hearing the varying sounds as the sea kissed, slapped or pounded the beach encourages a meditative mood. In this mood, one could contemplate the complexity of the Cosmos, and seek to commune with our Creator.

I personally do like a one-to-one contemplative relationship with God – with no ritual, and no intermediary priest, as well as others attending a religious service interrupting this silent communion.

Contemplation by the seaside would assist in combating stress, or even in countering the debilities of advancing age. For instance, I overcame my anger and helplessness after being exposed to ongoing harassment by a racist neighbour, and who had fenced off a sliver of my land (narrowing my driveway) as his property.

The sight from my desk of the sea in all its moods at any time during daylight, and hearing it 24/7 when it is either sibilantly chatty or more rumbustious, countered any depressing thoughts and anger which surfaced; and aided by a dollop of good quality Scotch at bedtime.

Advanced age does, of course, require some medication to ensure that necessary organs are functioning as well as may be expected. But one can counter, to a large extent, physical pain through mind control. Spiritual peace too reduces the need for pills.

On religion -probable origins

“I have long wondered how a religious belief could have come about, looking way back into Man’s social history. Before seeking an answer to that question, I had to define what I consider to be religious belief. My conclusion?

A sense or feeling of awe about something or events so powerful, so beyond our control or understanding, so ubiq­uitous, more often than not very frightening, yet uplifting at times. Since our primordial emotional state is anxiety, that is, uncertainty mixed with a degree of fear about what might happen, it is only natural that we would seek to reduce our sense of trepidation or fear.

Normally, when confronted by either an ethereal or a tangible source of anxiety, one either flees or fights. When thunder and lightning, torrential rain and floods, earth­quakes and tsunamis, and such like terrorised primitive Man, did he conjure up or imagine spirits of indefinable form, with malevolent intent, as causing his terror? Indeed, are not beliefs of an animist nature still held in the more simple soci­eties in the world? Did Early Man then also attempt to pro­pitiate the unknown and unseen causes of his terror in some way? Did he subsequently come to conclude that propitia­tion can at times be effective, especially after experiencing a period of relative peace?

Then did some opportunistic fellows set themselves up as competent intermediaries? That is, to intercede between the fearful and the feared – and perhaps for some small reward, price or benefit, which progressively led to control over the fearful? Was this how the shamans, the witchdoctors, the ‘brahmins’, and all other priesthoods came into being?

By interposing themselves as intermediaries able to reach fearsome spirits, and by appearing to appease them, as well as purporting to obtain guidance for the gullible, did the intermediaries then extend their power by subtle threats against both unbelievers and competitors? Were shrines then con­structed as places for placation? Did gifts, ostensibly to bribe the spirits (now possibly described as gods), then lead to the enrichment of the ‘priests’? Did they then begin to conduct ceremonies of some kind to convey the dead to their resting places, to welcome the newborn to the living, and to join in marriage those wanting to create new life?

Did these clever intermediaries use rituals they had devised; accompanied by allegedly explanatory mumbo-jumbo they had also concocted, to subjugate in superstition the fearful? Was this the process which engulfed not only primitive Man, but also the members of the simpler soci­eties which subsequently developed? Claiming to reach the Under-world, or the Over-world, or the mystical domains of those who allegedly have power over mankind must have been persuasive – especially if accompanied by some evi­dence of ill-luck for non-belief or non-compliance!”

The above are extracts from my book ‘Musings at death’s door: an ancient bicultural Asian-Australian ponders about Australian society’ 

 

Quaint concepts: The ‘fabric’ of space and ‘dimensions’

When the Hubble Telescope reported that galaxies (of solar systems, of those stars on fire clustered together as they spin in space) as moving away from one another into infinite space, the layman on Earth was offered an explanation – by analogy. This reported movement of galaxies was comparable to spots on a balloon moving away from one another as the balloon is being blown up. The image of a fabric pertaining to space was now in vogue.

This, instead, was confusing. Space is infinite, not bound by a skin of any kind. The concept of a fabric surrounding space makes no sense.

We were then offered space-time. That does not make sense either. Is time comparable to aether or Consciousness? How so? Is time any more than a measure of events as they occur? Is future time any more then an indication of events to occur? When my initial clairvoyant foresaw an event 12 years ahead (of me addressing a large number of students at a university), did that indicate anything about the nature of time?

An attempt to demonstrate gravity displayed what looked like a mesh (a fabric) with a dip in it; space-time is apparently ‘deformed’ by gravity. The language of mathematics must, however, be more explicitly clear.

Then some speculative cosmologists wrote about the possibility of more than one universe (the ‘multiverse’) in existence, with ‘worm holes’ connecting them; a diagrammatic representation was of a series of ‘balloons’ adjacent to one another.

My reaction is: could not another universe co-exist, perhaps be inter-twined, with our universe, while yet remaining separate in terms of its composition, structure, and operation?

One might therefore conceive reality as composed of more than one dimension. Theories of the structure of the universe include one which postulates about 11 dimensions, most of which are assumed to be rolled into a small apace (so goes the theory I read). These dimensions begin with the three we are all familiar with.

However, there is another concept of dimension. An example is the Afterlife, the temporary residence between Earthly lives. (Although I expect to be there soon, I will not be able to talk about it when I am next embodied; a great pity.)

This dimension would need to be self-contained and self-sufficient, thereby independent of the dimension occupied by us, and yet be related to it. My feeling, based on interactions with spirits, is that this dimension is also here; that is, with us. This would enable certain spirits to reach us; and a few humans enabled to communicate with occupants of this realm.

With no boundaries, no ‘fabric’ of any kind involved, a member of such ‘dimensions’ may co-exist in infinite space, depending upon their functions and related structures. Ethereal links may enable co-existence – even within the same sector of space.